My religion is knowledge and wisdom and love. This video has given me much to think about, consider, and research from the opposite perspective of Zeitgeist. Thanks.
texts are commonly repeated to this day, and the allegories they used have been repeated throughout time by many. Asiatic, 'eastern', judiac, vedic, babylonian, sumerian- all these texts contain invaluable information on what the people of these times understood and experienced. If you took the time to not be an ass over it all, youd realize these texts have been mistranslated and twisted. They are the most important things to defining ancient times, and all you do is shout all religion is false
why are you anti relgious people so stupid about it? The religious people are too, but what is up with you but hurt atheists? I assume you had bad religious experiences forced on you. I am not of faith, yet I don't have to get mad at all this. If you realize that all the words reilgious texts originate from some of the SMARTEST people of the ancient times - then you would see their value. They are like history books, mixed with the flavour of the times. The lessons explained in many of these
@mrcatfacefrog Zeitgeist's are not Atheist. That's whats crazy they are essentially Pagans yet Atheists are so anti christian they would rather support them and their propaganda.
@lion575 Your probably right true atheists are rare, even a large (minority?) of scientists nowadays drink the kool-aid together and worship their elevated theories like the are infallible and godly. But that pisses of the science/logic/skeptics who can't stand that truth. non of it's bad or good. People fuck it up and make it bad, but if they were strong good-hearted and cared enough - Science, Religion, Government, would all be so much more effective. but they are ALL largely tainted.
You can try to justify it all you want to im not every going to buy into it as true reality and frankly im pissed off at people who try to keep this obvious bullshit alive. The bible is bullshit no matter what you say.
Okay, at least the film begins to attack the arguments (if you want to call them that) put forth in Zeitgeist. The only problem is the discriminating viewer will likely see that this film, despite all the circular logic and rhetoric, actually makes Zeitgeist all the more clear and believable. I'm a somewhat quiet person, but this flick makes me want to scream: "JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!"
@ParallaxVue Its that zeitgeist that is making empty claims. Anyone who has introduced themselves to the bible can see this. There is movement to destroy religion and to make new religion with purpose to control and enslave us. Unless we develop our own wisdom, we will never know the truth. Peace
A friend of mine showed some clips of Zeitgeist claims on the Christian faith. Zeitgeist debunked traces the sources for their claims and its inconsistencies. One being that certain events of the are allegories of astrology, when in the same book the bible denounces it? Also the claims of Acharya S., Albert Churchwood, Gerald Massey, and Thomas Doane, that the deity of Jesus is a copy of the deity horus, is not found in any predating of citations in Egyptian records. I'm going to look into that
@Melaku85 - The New Testament was written by the Romans. They invented Jesus Christianity. The name Flavius is written all over it. I have no idea what all these supposedly educated people are thinking. It has virtually been proven fact that the story of Jesus was back-dated to a generation before the fall of Jerusalem and that Paul was also back-dated, written after the gospels.
Zeitgeist gets you asking questions, it doesn't give you answers.
@Franknarfable Actually the New Testament writings predate the Roman Empire's conversion(turned Roman Catholic), by at least 200 years, at 60-90AD. In the lifetime of the historical Jesus, we know Quirinius, literally translated Kyrenios, was governor of Syria(Luke:2:2), Tiberius Caesar was in his fifteenth year reign, Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in Palestine; Herod was tetrarch or ruler of Galilee; Herod's brother Phillip was tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis of Palestine. Cont.
@Melaku85 - "Actually the New Testament writings predate the Roman Empire's conversion"
Or so it would appear, but the Romans wrote the New Testament. They only appear to embrace it 200 years later, but they wrote it. The ministry of Jesus is based on the Jewish War. From Titus beginning his campaign at Galilee rights through to Titus having Simon killed in Rome and the sparing of John.
@Franknarfable Cont. Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene of Palestine; All provinces of the Roman Empire, with Abilene being given over by Claudias to Herod Agrippa in AD 53. All six politicians predate the Roman conversion to Christianity under Constantine in 325 AD. Before that they were Greek pagans. Its not the Christian faith of these first century scriptures that's the problem. Its the European Romans doing what they've done best; Taking advantage of whatever they can for political power.Con.
@Franknarfable Christianity was an eastern faith of the nonwhite poor before Rome's self serving imperialist agenda. It made it to the west as a result of Paul the apostle's efforts, who was a Roman born Jew. This is just simple Philology and scholarship. That's why zeitgeist' sources choose audiences ignorant to scholarship and philology because they don't hold longetivity among circles of historians, philologists,as well as scholars, though they attempt to handle it scholarly. Cont.
@Melaku85 - Paul never existed. His epistles where written after the Gospels and back-dated to before 70 AD. It is pretty simple to do as it's not real history.
The ONLY way Christianity could of spread so fast throughout the Roman Empire was with the backing of the Roman Empire. You follow?
Forget Zeitgeist. It doesn't explain much, if anything really.
@Franknarfable Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. Nevertheless, the uniform testimony of the early church, i.e. the 200 year active church before the conversion of Rome in 313AD, attributes authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There were no other known competitors for authorship. The fact that these accounts were based on eyewitness material from at least 3 of the 4 authors being unlikely characters, is substantial. Cont.
@Franknarfable Cont. With the exception of the gospel of John, Mark and Luke weren't even among the 12 disciples, and Matthew as a hated tax collector would've been the most infamous character next to Judas Iscariot. This is the circumstantial evidence for the authorship of 3 of the 4 gospel writers. The discrepancy with the gospel of John is not the name of the author but which person of the name. From Christian writer Papias, dated 125AD, we can't tell if he's referring to 2 Johns or 1
@Franknarfable In spite of this uncertainty, the testimony of the earlier church is unanimous that John the apostle(not baptist), son of Zebedee, is author of the fourth gospel. We have at least 2 pre-Roman council writings from the early church fathers confirming authorship of the other 3 gospels, from Papias 125AD, and Irenaeus dated 180AD. Papias affirmed that Mark accurately recorded Peter's eyewitness observations, making no false statement and that Matthew preserved the teachings as well.
@Franknarfable Irenaeus of 180AD, stated, that Matthew published his own gospel in Hebrew tongue, when Peter and PAUL founded churches and preached the gospel. He states further that after their departure, Mark, the disciplined interpreter and disciple of Peter, himself handed down his gospel to them. He also stated that Luke, follower of PAUL, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Last but not least, he stated that John the disciple of the Lord, produced his gospel at Ephesus
@Franknarfable Cont. As for the methods of Historiography and Higher Criticism, scholars use to determine authorship, there is the explicit identification of the author in the text, or the implicit identification using autobiographical details. Not only does Paul mention being imprisoned in his writings, they all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary, and style; They exhibit a uniform doctrine around the Mosaic Law; All of these letters fit into the time of Paul's missionary journeys
@Melaku85 - So you think that the Romans, being the culturally aware and supremely intelligent, where not culturally aware or intelligent enough to produce the New Testament? Because that is all it boils down to. Could they do it? Yes, of course they could and they did.
Higher Criticism ONLY cite Paul as the author because the author tells us his name is Paul. That's it. How very scientific.
You think that because Paul states he was imprisoned that is evidence for his authorship? Really?
@Franknarfable"So you think the Romans, being culturally aware and SUPREMELY INTELLIGENT(?), were not culturally aware or intelligent enough to produce the New Testament?" Now you're just treading on wishful thinking. History shows the philosophers of Greece that refined Rome, visited Egypt(Kemet-land of the blacks) to learn from their priests for SUPREME INTELLIGENCE. Pythagoras stayed 22 years, as well as Plato, Eudoxus, Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Socrates in 6BC Cont.
@Franknarfable Not at all. Rome had nothing to gain from this during AD 40-100. This much emphasis on a culture other than Rome would place that particular culture to a divine status, take the attention off the greatness of their mythology, and render the dominant Roman culture with its many Roman gods, obsolete. To forget a then 1,000 year religious tradition(Rome's religious beliefs date as far back as 800 BC) for a foreign one, given Rome's national pride is absurd.
@Melaku85 - "given Rome's national pride is absurd"
The Empire is new. The Roman Emperor is fairly new. The civil war and the Jews had taught them much. If they could take Judaism, give it to the normal folk, do away with circumcision, certain eating habits, then the growing numbers of Jews (10% of Rome) could convert whilst still holding onto Abraham, Moses, etc.
By your thinking, it was EVEN crazier then that Constantine would forget 1,000 years of religious tradition and worship a Jew. No?
You have not explained why Paul cannot be back-dated. If he can, which he was, then the gospels are satire and the Romans gave us Christianity.
The sooner you realise that the Romans where an evolving political power the better. Maybe then you'll stop underestimating them and realise the obvious truth.
@Franknarfable There was nothing ORIGINAL about knowledge of the Romans, and there is no evidence under scientific analysis, to attribute authorship to them. The Romans were never concerned about the RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS of Jews, so as to study Judaism, echo the moral ideal of the Torah, sit in on Jewish festivals, as well as give insight to Jewish customs and frame of mind. You can dismiss me with your predictions. Evidence for Jewish authorship is undisputed in scholarly circles
I predict future scholarship will explain the synoptic gospels where written first. Then Acts and John where written followed by the Pauline Epistles. The Holy Spirit becomes more "involved" after the synoptics, indicating those works where written under the reign of Domitian.
The life and works of Josephus are used to construct Paul and his adventures. That is how we get "accuracies" in culture, themes, vocabulary and style.
@Franknarfable Cont. If they want to oppose something, they should oppose the history of their ancestors for using a faith foreign to them for oppression of the Jews and other nonwhites, as well as the poor, with the military power to change the rules. Christianity is an eastern faith in origin, not a western Roman Catholic one.
@Melaku85 - The eastern empire wrote in Koine Greek, how the New Testament was written. The western empire tended to write in latin. The education of the aristocratic Romans was such that they could probably speak/write in more then two languages. Anyway...
Jesus Christianity did not appear until after 70 AD. Nero persecuted the zealots not the Jesus Christians.
Luke & Acts is dedicated to Theophilus / Flavius Sabinus, brother of Vespasian (the father). And uncle to Titus (the good son).
@Franknarfable Evidence for the existence of Paul is made in the historical document of Acts, as well as the affirmation of Irenaeus. These characters whose existence aren't disputed, attest of Paul's existence
@Melaku85 - Thank you for that reminder of tradition. The New Testament is fictional history. Acts is not actual history, so to use it as evidence for the historical Paul is ridiculous.
The gospels are clearly based on the Roman-Jewish war, they are comical, satirical and obviously fictional. This means the New Testament was written by the Romans. That means Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc are fictional characters.
If that is the case, which it is, then Irenaeus is also bogus.
@Franknarfable Not believing in orthodox Christianity is one thing; makes me the least bit of difference. Nevertheless, stating repetitiously your OPINION of the New Testament being fictional history, as if these statements alone will suffice, with no philological and/or archaeological explanation, is profound ignorance. The proof of these claims come from the scientific research of philological analysis, paleography, linguistic, and papyrology laboratories, and microfilm archives.
@Franknarfable Thank you for the historical reflection on the Jewish War of 70AD, that by your own admission, though sarcastic, was predicted by Jesus. Your initial premise whether implicit or explicit, is that all 29 books of the sacred writings, known as The New Testament, are not authentic documents. Not even the faith-based portions undermine in anyway the authenticity of the documents. Again this is already confirmed through the scientific analysis of philology, paleography, and papyrology
How about yes. And I have no problem explaining the analysis but I may not need to, at least not yet. If the sacred 29 books or writings, known as the New Testament are dated between about 60AD and 90AD, preceded by the Old Testament writings dated between 1500 and 500BC, how do you explain the Old Testament prophetic predictions hundreds of years ago, fulfilled in the Jesus of the New Testament?
@Melaku85 - How do I explain the prophecies from the Old Testament coming true in the New Testament?
Considering that the New Testament is a fictional history, then it's authors simply READ the "Old Testament" and made the prophecies come true. Could you of asked me an easier question?
I think we best move along to you explaining the analysis and how it proves the authors.
@Franknarfable It was worth a shot. "Considering that the New Testament is fictional history, then its AUTHORS simply read the Old Testament and made the prophecies come true," sounds like you indirectly proved my point. Most of the time when individuals make that statement, their dispute is not the authors OF Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and James, but their claims
@Melaku85 - Are you purposely avoiding explaining the analysis just so you can talk in riddles?
You asked a question, I answered it logically. Are you suggesting that the writers of the New Testament had never read the "Old Testament"? Are you suggesting that these "Jews" had absolutely no idea that the Jewish people where awaiting a Messiah?
If you don't mind, could you just explain the analysis?
@Franknarfable Sure. First, here's what has been established HISTORICALLY for the reliability of the New Testament. As if the writers of the early Church outside the bible who affirm the scriptures aren't enough such as Papias and Irenaeus, here are non- christian sources: Suetonius(chief secretary to emperor Hadrian; reigned AD 117-138) confirms the report of Acts 18:2 that Claudias commanded all Jews(among them Acquilla and Priscila) to leave Rom in AD 49.
@Franknarfable Cont. Josephus(AD 37-100) confirmed the martyrdom of John the Baptist; Referred to Jesus as the brother of James who was stoned to death. This reference to Jesus confirms that he was a real person(for zeitgeist skeptics), that he was identified by others as the Christ, and that he had a brother who died a martyr's death at the hands of high priest, Albinus and his Sanhedrin. Cont.
@Franknarfable Cont. Thallus wrote around AD 52. Thallus recorded the darkness following the crucifixion, as well as the earthquake documented in the gospels. Thallus explains the darkness as a solar eclipse, but also reports Jesus' crucifixion occurred during a full moon. A solar eclipse cannot take place during a full moon. Pliny The Younger(Roman author and administrator) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan in AD 112. In it he described early christian worship practices. Cont.
@Franknarfable Cont. He described how they meet before sunlight, take an oath not to do wicked deeds, then they would partake of food. This confirms the early church practice of breaking bread documented in Acts 2;42,46. I'll be back to share more, my wife's bugging me lol
@Melaku85 - 1) Thallus? "but also reports Jesus' crucifixion occurred during a full moon" - He doesn't even mention Jesus. No-one is sure when he wrote. I am actually shocked you mention him.
2) Early church fathers - If the New Testament is bogus, which it is, the why on earth would we believe in church fathers and what they have to say?
3) Suetonius? Roman hierarchy. Close with the Flavian Emperors (who the NT is based around).
4) Josephus FLAVIUS - His life and work is used to construct the majority of the New Testament and he is the first and only one to mention Jesus by name. HIghly suspicious and a provider of bogus historicity for creations such as John the Baptist and Jesus.
5) Pliny and Tactius are very, very close with the Flavians. Plinys use of rhetoric means he advertises Christianity, confirms Martyrs and distances Rome from the creation of this religion. They all work for Titus.
@Franknarfable The primary sources for the life of Christ come from the four gospels. Nevertheless there are significant reports from NON-CHRISTIAN sources that confirm the gospel accounts. They come from Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Samaritan sources. The New Testament writings date from AD 50 to AD 90. The earliest surviving fragments date to AD 120 and some 50 fragments date within 100 years of that time. Approximately 5,686 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament still exist.Cont
@Franknarfable Cont. In addition to the Greek manuscripts, more than 19,000 manuscripts exist in other languages. NO OTHER DOCUMENT OF ANTIQUITY COMES CLOSER IN RELIABILITY. Homer's Illiad comes second with 643 manuscripts surviving.Cont
@Franknarfable Cont. Here's the scientific analysis for a historical document. There are two most important factors in determining its reliability: the number of manuscript copies in existence, the time when it was first written, and the oldest existing copy. Compare the New Testament with other ancient writer's works. Cont
@Melaku85 - You are literally telling me NOTHING and I had such high hopes. I fail to see how anything you are saying disproves Roman authorship of the New Testament. Only the Pauline Epistles date from before 70, but I am saying they are back-dated to appear like they where written during that time. I hear nothing disproving that.
An earlier version of Mark (Ur Marcus) was maybe before 70, but that is a big maybe.
@Franknarfable It was important to first clarify that the New Testament successfully completes the scientific analysis for a historically reliable document. As if circumstantial evidence of the geographic and cultural origins for a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN FAITH aren't obvious enough for JEWISH AUTHORSHIP, at a time(AD 40-100) when Romans focused exclusively on their Egyptian-copied, pantheon of gods, there's other factors. Concerning authorship, scholars use Historiography and Higher Criticism. CONT.
@Franknarfable CONT. Concerning the JEWISH AUTHORSHIP of the New Testament, its important to note that the majority Jewish and Christian community agree to this fact. The pages of the New Testament follow the framework of Judaism: Echos instruction from the Torah; First four gospels address a Jewish audience; Jesus presence in the synagogues of reported miracles, scroll readings, etc. were Jewish places of worship; Writings give insight to Jewish customs, thoughts, and beliefs.Cont.
@Franknarfable Back from computer repair. Now as for the dating of the Pauline gospels: Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, 2nd Thessalonians; according to scholars is dated between AD 49-67. Pauline authorship and this time frame are already established and there is no dispute about it in academic circles.CONT.
@Franknarfable CONT. If it is scholarly established that the New Testament is historically reliable, then the narrative of Paul's life and ministry from Acts of the Apostles, is the writings scholars have observed to locate the origin of his authorship, as well as dates, by analyzing the context of his life in this period. "The New Testament was written in Koine Greek by UNKNOWNS?" You said the authorship is unknown because you refuse to accept the broad scholarship for one article; Not enough.
@Melaku85 - The New Testament was written by the Alexanders, Herodians and Flavians.
Philo is the "father" of Christianity and his brothers could not be more connected. The three brothers received a thorough education in the Egyptian, Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures, particularly in the traditions of Judaism, the study of the Old Testament and in Greek Philosophy.
Philo’s writings can be seen as an effort to inject Stoicism into Judaism (pre-70 AD) to pacify rebellious Jews.
Does that sound a little more understanding of the scholarship? That means Paul could of existed, but that would mean Josephus was bogus. They both cannot have such matching lives and have both existed, surely.
"by analyzing the context of his life in this period" - But if Josephus' life from this SAME period was used in constructing Paul then that proves the author of Paul did his research. Historical reliability.
@Franknarfable Your claims for a Roman invented Christianity comes from the Piso Theory(also known as Roman Piso theory), developed by Abelard Reuchlin in 1979, and followed up by Joseph Atwill from his 2003 book, Caesar's Messiah. This theory claims the New Testament was written by the Calpurnius Piso family, supposedly made up of Cleopatra, the Ptolemy's, Pythagoras, "Flavius" Joseph, and Roman Emperor Titus "Flavius" Vespasiani Cont.d
@Franknarfable Cont'd. Atwill's '79 theory doesn't go beyond this. His claims are found no where in classical scholarship, nor are they recorded in The Journal of Roman Studies. A Net search of the name "Arrius Calpurnius Piso" is found only on websites that favor the theory. This name is found nowhere on sites dedicated to Roman history, Latin studies, or anywhere dealing with SERIOUS SCHOLARSHIP. So before you state, "Paul never existed," as in your earlier posts, check your Piso theory
@Franknarfable As for Joseph Atwill's later claim of Emperor Titus being the inventor of Christianity, he exceeds his predecessor Abelard Reuchlin in further developing this theory, by at least USING A REAL PERSON THIS TIME. Nevertheless here's Atwill's errors: Atwill says he couldn't perceive how Judaism could produce 2 movements as diametrically opposed as the warlike Sicarri and the "peace" advocating Jesus. This is poor perspective. One may as well ask how 20 century society made X and King
@Franknarfable Cont'd The reality that Atwill failed to realize was that Jesus message itself was not going to bring peace but a sword as he stated. The gospel or good news in its moral precepts and allegiance was hostile to Roman authority as well as the culture of society. Atwill missed this research and shows his lack of study on the subject. Secondly he supposes that Jesus was invented to attract militaristic, messianic Jews.; yet Jesus was the exact opposite figure of a military symbol.Cont
@Melaku85 - So Atwill failed to realise that Jesus was not bringing peace but a sword?
"Jesus coming with a sword in Matt 10 refers to Titus’s return at Book 4, 1, line 70. In the passage Titus slays a number of Jews and then traps another group next to a cliff where the men “threw their children and their wives down the cliff. In other words, – a man against his father, a daughter against her mother.” Vicious Roman typology" - Atwill
@Franknarfable Cont. "How is Atwill a continuation of Piso, Reuchlin mentions nothing of Titus/Jesus and satirical parallels?," ...."the evidence is completely different." NOW ARE YOU ON CRACK? Piso theory, Flavian Hypothesis, or any advocates of a Roman invention of the New Testament are all under the same umbrella. Of course with time there's an evolution of variations by the authors, because it has to draw attention to the new advocate. No audience will give attention to redundancy. Cont.
@Franknarfable Cont. In fact, Colleges are using his supportive sites for his theories in classrooms to show its absurdity. His features you listed for his upcoming film are all laughing stocks in classical scholarship and get no recognition. Good luck on that support
@Franknarfable "Bauer came out with his theory at a time when no one dared." More like, Bauer was foolish enough to recreate Christian history in spite of the the existing evidence against it. These claims in essence are neither theories nor hypotheses. A theory is SATISFACTORILY TESTED OR PROVEN; A hypothesis is USED TO DENOTE CONJECTURES OR PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONS OR MODELS WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN TESTED OR PROVEN TO THE SAME STANDARD. Their claims fall in neither idea. Cont.
@Franknarfable These ideas are nothing more than deliberate fabrications. You can give me all the bogus claims you want for the Flavian Hypothesis. Until Atwill stops making websites and documentaries that deceive the scholarly ignorant, and until he strikes a home run in recognition from Latin studies or The Journal of Roman Studies, this theory of Roman authorship of the New Testament will go only so far at best; At worst it'll fade to black.
@Melaku85 - According to Seyoon Kim, many of the religious terms found in the NT were used in the literature of the Imperial Cult. This is coming from someone who studied with F.F. Bruce. This is from a book written in 2008. Now what?
You says it's fading away, but the complete opposite is happening?
Bauer reminds me of Dessau. The only difference being H.A doesn't have millions of religious vultures ready to attack. Also, H.A is evidence of common practice.
@Franknarfable "According to Seyoon Kim, many of the religious terms found in the NT were used in the literature of the Imperial Cult." And this proves what exactly? How does this in anyway undermine the reliability and authorship of the New Testament which is your argument. "This is coming from someone who studied with F.F. Bruce." So they were college students together, so what. Cont.
@Franknarfable F.F. Bruce is the only reliable name on this matter that you've mentioned all month. Here's a couple of his books that you conveniently left out: "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable;" "The Canon of Scripture."
@Franknarfable Cont.The claim by Atwill aforementioned shows his lack of ancient social psychology. Last but not least, Atwill openly contradicts himself for claiming to not see how Judaism could produce such diametric opposites, yet argues that Christianity was built to make these opposites attract. In other words, he theorizes that Judaism would not produce such a group, but hypothesizes in the same breath that Jews then converted to such a group. There are many errors that expose this THEORY
@Melaku85 - How is Atwill a continuation of Piso, Reuchlin mentions nothing of Titus/Jesus and satirical parallels? The theories meet at certain points, but the evidence is completely different. Atwill picked up on parallels scholars had already noted, adds to them and discovers sequences.
You spend 3 comments discussing one possible problem that's not even a problem (Mountain out of mole hill). Why would Jews have diametrically opposite Messiahs? They didn't. The Romans invented one.
@Franknarfable These so called scholars/skeptics developed their premises on the foundation of AUTHORS. Joseph Atwill and his "black sheep" camaraderie have Bruno Bauer to thank, who started this propaganda in his 1877 book, Christ and Caesars. He was the first to THEORIZE Roman authorship of the New Testament and claimed "Flavius" Josephus invented Jesus; Ring a bell? Next was James Ballantyne Hannay who claimed Roman authorship in a series of articles and pamphlets in 1925. Cont.
@Franknarfable Cont. Hannay also published a book this same year entitled, The Rise, Fall, and Decline of the Roman Religion. Four years later Abelard Reuchlin published his book under this umbrella of theory of Roman authorship entitled, The True Authorship of the New Testament. Finally there's the new school of Joseph Atwill keeping this tradition alive with his 2003 book entitled, Caesar's Messiah. Christ and Caesars(Bauer-1877); Caesar's Messiah(Atwill-2003); Now there's a satirical parallel
@Franknarfable "How about these books that support Roman authorship, you've not mentioned them." Either you have poor reading comprehension skills or you haven't read my previous comments; I mentioned the books from Bauer, Hannay, Reuchlin, the pioneers of the theory. Atwill and the others are advocates with their own twist. Atwill, his supporters, and the supporters of his supporters ARE ALL LAUGHING STOCKS OF CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP. Their Piso THEORY AND Flavian HYPOTHESIS is just that. Cont.
You're not dealing with Carotta or Kim. That's the equivalent of dealing with Dessau and ignoring Syme, especially Kim.
"Bauer was foolish enough to recreate Christian history in spite of the the existing evidence against it"
WHAT EVIDENCE? Jesus and Paul have ZERO historicity. No contemporary records exist you dingbat. Tell me what evidence you're referring to that prevents Roman authorship (those linked to the Flavians).
@Franknarfable "WHAT EVIDENCE? Jesus and Paul have zero historicity. I proved this a week ago explaining that the New Testament successfully completes the scientific analysis for reliability.There are two most important factors in determining its reliability: the number of manuscript copies in existence, the time when it was first written, and the oldest existing copy. Cont.
@Franknarfable Again, The New Testament writings date from AD 50 to AD 90. The earliest surviving fragments date to AD 120 and some 50 fragments date within 100 years of that time. Approximately 5,686 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament still exist. In addition to the Greek manuscripts, more than 19,000 manuscripts exist in other languages. NO OTHER DOCUMENT OF ANTIQUITY COMES CLOSER IN RELIABILITY. Homer's Illiad comes second with 643 manuscripts surviving. Cont.
@Franknarfable Cont. That being said, if the New Testament is proven to be reliable, then the primary sources for the life of Christ come from the four gospels. The narrative of Paul's life and ministry from Acts of the Apostles, is the writings scholars have observed to locate the origin of his authorship, as well as dates, by analyzing the context of his life in this period. Cont.
@Melaku85 - There are a few recent discoveries that need explaining. Carotta's parallels death between Jesus and Caesar, Atwills Flavian parallels and the ever expanding Josephus/Paul parallels.
They are there and do need explaining.
There is far more evidence for literary design then there is for historicity of Jesus and Paul. The parallels between Paul and Josephus are a real problem for ANY theory on him.
@Franknarfable "There are a few recent discoveries that need explaining. Carotta's parallels death between Jesus and Caesar, Atwills Flavian parallels and the ever expanding Josephus/Paul parallels."
Two words describe this HAZY method most propagated by practically all skeptic theorists: COPYCAT THESIS. First, A THESIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PROPOSITION ADVANCED AS AN ARGUMENT. Cont.
@Franknarfable Cont. So in the environment of scholarship, the scientific and fundamental grounds for these claims as has been discussed throughout this debate, are that they neither qualify as fact, history, or theory. According to the strictest scholarship, THESE CLAIMS ARE AT BEST a HY-POTH-ESIS or THESIS. Copycat thesis or copycat parallels are the same imaginative methodology used in the Flavian hypothesis-Josephus/Paul; Roman Piso-Christ/Caesar; Jesus/Virishna; Jesus/Horus. Cont.
@Franknarfable Cont. Copycat parallels rely heavily upon vague generalization, the collapsing and dulling of terms and specifics, interpretation of evidence as broadly as possible, and significant creativity by the author. Using such methods, it's possible to relegate any story or person to the realm of myth. Case in point: Frances Utley, author of Lincoln Wasn't There. In it, Utley used the same formula for parallels and typology to support his thesis that Abraham Lincoln was a myth;Believe em?
@Melaku85 - "Flavian hypothesis-Josephus/Paul; Roman Piso-Christ/Caesar; Jesus/Virishna; Jesus/Horus"
ALL point to the SAME conclusions, therefore all complimenting each other. Result? The New Testament is FICTIONAL literature.
Whereas the historical New Testament is supported by ZERO evidence. Outside evidence for Paul of Tarsus? Non-existent. Outside evidence for Jesus Christ? Zero.
Take your pick.
You've not looked into Paul/Josephus, or read Atwill or Carotta. You're not fully informed.
@Franknarfable "All point to the SAME conclusions, therefore all complimenting each other. Result? The New Testament is FICTIONAL literature?" You just restated your initial argument with no in depth reply to the faulty premises aforementioned; what a weak response
"Whereas the historical New Testament is supported by zero evidence. Outside evidence for Paul of Taurus? Non- existent. Outside evidence for Jesus Christ? Zero." Fortunately your sources, conclusions, and predictions are disproven
@Franknarfable You've not looked into Paul/Josephus, or read Atwill or Carotta. You're not fully informed." I researched the origins for the earliest sources of your claims, gave their names, books, and the names of their theories(which turned out to be methods of COPYCAT PARALLELS, TO DEVELOP A THESIS AND/OR HYPOTHESIS. I'd say this is plenty of INFORM-ATION.These ideas are disproven by majority scholars under the strictest scholarship. This same scholarship validates the New Testament.
@Melaku85 - I've made my points and provided sources. You cannot support your comments. The New Testament is a work of fiction and only a complete fool would argue otherwise. So go right ahead and talk yourself into a hole. You've researched nothing and read nothing.
@Franknarfable If you can continue to make claims rooted in the same methodology for parallels and typology that was fundamentally used to claim Abraham Lincoln as a myth, then it is apparent who the complete fool is. Do yourself a favor and broaden your spectrum of research for scholarship that doesn't continue this amusing pattern. "So go right ahead and talk yourself into a hole." If talking to you is analogous to talking into a hole, thanks for the heads up; last comment to a hollow space.
@Melaku85 - How many parallels in the Ab Lincoln myth?
I got HUNDREDS of parallels. Some for Paul, some for Jesus, some for Simon, John, Mary, EVERYONE, it's ENDLESS. Many of them have MATCHING SEQUENCES. To compare it to Lincoln makes you foolish and proves you've read nothing.
What do you suggest I research to broaden my spectrum? Any recommendations? I am happy to go read if you think I've missed anything. Suggestions please.
@Franknarfable Author, Frances Utley, used 22 copycat parallels or typology between Lincoln and a mythical hero. It's actually an incomplete thesis paper. F.F. Bruce "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable," Josh Mcdowell "Evidence That Demands A Verdict," and Lee Strobel(former skeptic) "The Case For The Real Christ," present some of the strongest arguments for the New Testament's reliability and Jesus.
@Franknarfable Perhaps if you were willing to get F.F. Bruce book, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable," I could likewise get this book and any book of your recommendation. If you'd like, we could both read these two books together to see how they hold up to the scrutiny of critics, as well as comparing their claims to methods of the strictest scholarship.
@Melaku85 - I will look into getting a hold of that book. I am interested in learning different ideas.
I realise that scholars keep on dismissing parallels, but as they build up, of which they are voluminous, it becomes more and more likely that this is constructed fictional literature. It's not like these parallels all point in different directions either, they point directly to the name Flavius. The NT is full of historical accuracies, it's just the main characters that are fictional.
@Franknarfable You're welcome. Great debate; longest and most informative debate I'd been in thus far. Before you I was not even aware of these challenges brought forth. At the end of the day, truth is key. It's quest is a raw human need that pangs some more than others. Hope those books answers some fundamental questions as it did for me
@Franknarfable Unless Atwill's claims as well your echoes of him, followed by other advocates, are recognized in authentic circles of classical scholarship such as Latin studies, sites dedicated to Roman history outside this inner circle, or gets recorded in The Journal of Roman Studies, this is just another fairy tale. "My ideas on Paul are my ideas btw?" Please leave that to the scholars btw.
@Franknarfable Your own advocates of this theory don't even mention Atwill without also mentioning Bauer, Hannay, and Reuchlin in the same breath. Websites such as angelfire and webspawner are a case in point. These websites support ROMAN AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT and provide links for all these theories for research. "After the release of his next book and Hudsons similar book on structural analysis, I THINK THERE'LL BE MORE SUPPORT AGAIN?' There never was. Cont.
@Melaku85 - It seems Atwill is doing quite well. His coming documentary features Robert Eisenman, John Hudson, Ken Humphreys, Rod Blackhirst, Acharya S / D.M. Murdock, and Timothy Freke. All happy to stand alongside him and his findings. After the release of his next book and Hudsons similar book on structural analysis, I think there'll be more support again.
My ideas on Paul are my ideas btw. It seems everyone has a different idea about him. Atwill gives his opinion on Paul in next book.
Thank you for the trip down memory lane. I enjoyed stopping off at all of the old "evidence" of historicity, can you stop stalling now and explain how we know Paul dates to before 70 AD?
I think the Paul from Acts came first and Paul from the Epistles came later. In fact, the chronology of authorship goes... 1) Gospels - 2) Acts - 3) Pauls letters - 4) Revelations
@Franknarfable CONT. The discrepancy here is the conclusions you've drawn surrounding the Jewish War. Give me the source/es from where you gathered these conclusions?
Google - Satirical Parallels Between Josephus and the NT - then read, you can then of course go and check the New Testament and Josephus to confirm that the typology is correct.
My opinion is based on the actual historical writings, as you can see.
Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem a generation later. He predicts the death of Simon and the sparing of John. Titus fulfills all of these. Simply, Titus came first and the predictions where written later.
Following capture on the Mount of Olives, Josephus reveals a passage in which Titus states that three times he has exhorted Simon to "peace" and three times he had been denied.
call me whatever you want to call me but this video isnt helping the 'Christian's' cause.... this makes no sense yet claims to make perfect sense? The bible is a series of books turned into spark notes, once u realize that, u r in my eyes a true 'Christian'
@ME3RZ11 This video is designed to refute the zeitgeist movement, And your series of books turned into spark notes statement makes no sense at all. Have you ever read the Bible? or just a few parts? Most people that make statements like that usually are from people speaking about something they do not know.
@spicecrop - I am a born raised Catholic, I have read the Bible several times, my grandfather was a Deacon and he taught all 36 of us at the time the ways of the Lord.(over 115+ ppl in my family one side now) and we all share the same Catholic belief as my Grandfather taught us. What I meant by what I wrote was this documentary only covers the Religious Aspect of the Zeitgeist movement.(which I agree with) but this video only covers a 5th of what Zeitgeist is ALL about, its not only religion :/
8:56 True, she's not a virgin. But she still does have a "virgin birth", her son divinely conceived rather than from mortal sex.
"According to Bhagavata Purana it is believed that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki."
@BoggiD101 what i jsut saw is, christian doctrine has changed i don't believe it, but if it hasn't changed, i won't believe it either. look man, there is well enough evidence for the historical accounts of miracles in the bible, search up mount sinai in saudi arabia, and the real soddom and gomorah. you'll see everythign you need to know to ratio9nally believe in the bible, but either you won't look it up or youll say "well this still doesn't prove anything" i can't help but try though.god bless
Even in modern times, the idea of God went through much change. How much persecution and scisms have happened throughout Christian history because of conflicting basic ideas. Martin Luther believed only grace through faith could absolve people into heaven and not paying cash to the Church.
Puritans fled England to the New World because they believed only faith itself gave salvation without rituals observed both by Catholics and Protestants.
6:18 God has not been the same. "A History of God" shows how our concept of God went through many changes from the highest pagan god El-Shaddai who mortals formed personal packs with to the war god Yahweh depicted as draconian and bloodthirsty in books like Judges and Deuteronomy and God as a personal, transcendent idea by the Common Era.
religion makes you stupid, you cannot think on your own only repeat what you have been told. Just believe and shut up don't try to make your stupid shit valid to free thinkers
@fataldesain In your purely naturalistic worldview, do you know have reason to think? If you are a thinking person, you would be using logic wouldn't you? Logic is not a naturalistic entity. It exists beyond the realm of naturalism. How can you appeal to logic when naturalism is all there is? Also, your statement is quite ignorant. I can declare you are not a free thinker and you are only parroting what you've been taught growing up. There is no way to back that up. Pointless comment.
I have failed to see anything refuted and I am convinced this man actually likes the zeitgeist.. Why does he keep asking for the original documents to prove the claims? I now ask him to provide the original documents to prove the biblical claims.. The bible is and has always been symbolic so each of those stories in the bible has an esoteric aspect.. Exoteric religion on the other hand is what dominates the world today and is fucking up the our temporary earthly joint.
the reason they say the things 1:35 is probably because it was a way to keep followers away from looking up at the sky to shun them away from the answer the government conceals. hence social control.
@NWOisdead you do know the bible says trust and love your government with all your hearts and give money to the vatican or go to hell 10% read the bible for yourself
@panzergrenadier1941 IF SATAN REALLY CORRUPTED THE BIBLE AND WANTED ALL OF US TO GO TO HELL WITH HIM ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS RIP OUT A FEW MEASLY PAGES FROM THE BIBLE THAT MENTION JESUS SO WE DONT KNOW JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN, NOT TO MENTION THAT HIS MASTER PLAN IS APPERENTLY IN BOOK OF RELEVELATION, DID IT NOT OCCUR TO HIM THAT PEOPLE KNOWING HIS MASTER PLAN MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE LONG RUN HE COUDLVE SCRIBBLED OVER IT OR RIP IT OUT OR EVEN BURN THE BOOK WHOLE, SORRY OF FOR THE CAPS
@panzergrenadier1941 IF SATAN REALLY CORRUPTED THE BIBLE AND WANTED ALL OF US TO GO TO HELL WITH HIM ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS RIP OUT A FEW MEASLY PAGES FROM THE BIBLE THAT MENTION JESUS SO WE DONT KNOW JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN, NOT TO MENTION THAT HIS MASTER PLAN IS APPERENTLY IN BOOK OF RELEVELATION, DID IT NOT OCCUR TO HIM THAT PEOPLE KNOWING HIS MASTER PLAN MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE LONG RUN HE COUDLVE SCRIBBLED OVER IT OR RIP IT OUT OR EVEN BURN THE BOOK WHOLE, SORRY OF FOR THE CAPS
@mohawkChristianUFO im not yelling just had caps locked on by accident, all im saying is if i was satans right hand man i wouldve done a way better job of corrupting it
satans minion: while we were corrupting the bible we noticed in the revelations thats your master plan is in it
you want us to just scribble over it?
satan: umm.... thats not gonna be a probelm
satans minion: are you sure cause im no genius but if people know about the false christ it might be a toughie
And yes, there are other religions that predate Christianity that have very similar themes. Zoroastrianism predates christianity and it teaches about a coming world savior (called the Saoshyant), who will be miraculously born to a virgin. Christianity is not as original and novel as most Christians realize.
And yes, there are other religions that predate Christianity that have very similar themes. Zoroastrianism predates christianity and it teaches about a coming world savior (called the Saoshyant), who will be miraculously born to a virgin. Christianity is not as original and novel as most Christians realize.
And yes, there are other religions that predate Christianity that have very similar themes. Zoroastrianism predates christianity and it teaches about a coming world savior (called the Saoshyant), who will be miraculously born to a virgin. Christianity is not as original and novel as most Christians realize.
Some of what zeitgeist says about Christianity is poorly researched bullshit (or at least they only cite sources that support their preconceived conclusions). But their larger point, that Christianity is historically unreliable, is spot on. There was nothing written during the supposed lifetime of Jesus that makes any mention of him. Nothing. The earliest writings that mention him came years, if not a couple decades or more, after he is said to have died. I find that very suspicious.
The "good book" also says that a RAPED woman MUST MARRY her rapist & her rapist must pay the raped woman's father SILVER for the crime! HE is not allowed to divorce HER, it states. THATS GOD'S JUSTICE? And if a woman is found NOT to be a virgin by her husband (I guess he feels justified in inspecting her vagina for hymn - which is disgusting!) shes stoned to DEATH! I am SO GLAD TO BE FREE from that mind control belief system of lies & threats of burning. I hope you find your way out too. SEARCH!
You are obviously a Christian who is clinging on to falsities, do you also believe in jack and the bean stock? And pinocchio? These fairy tales are just as believable as Christianity. Talking snakes, people living inside of fish, magic fruit, walking on water. Your stupid
the gods of norse mythology thru the poetic edda, has never change. miss-interpitations of the translations shouldnt be considered a change, for if you do, then i will have to ask you to feel that the new king james version of the bible, and the countless others re-wrote to aim at specific group, aka children's bible, bible for the self help, teen bibles, study bible that change words to near simular meanings but still is a re-do if going by the guidelines of change elsewhere, we are all human
this video is a bunch of conjecture and lies... Horus wasn't depicted before Jesus? i don't like when people lie...if you want me to believe you..stop lying to me
this video is a bunch of conjecture and lies... Horus wasn't depicted before Jesus? i don't like when people lie...if you want me to believe you..stop lying to me
@naganokumas either you need to buy an amount from both, or understand that yes loss of loyalty is a hardship, but it is part of business and any burearcrat would understand. its your free will to chose what store you go to, so why would you allow others to make your decision for you??? either by saying go here, or a chemical compound secreated into your brain, bringing on the feeling of shame for leaving the first shop. all in all, eat bananas
Don't you love how these guys simply forget about trying to refute everthyng else that zeitgeist tells, which is actually far more important than simply religion
If you could prove Christianity scientifically and historically, it would be hard not to believe in it. There would be indefatigable truth to support the Gospels. But in that case, why would God give man the gift of choice if there was no reason to not believe? Doubt must exist; there must be reason to be skeptical in order to give man the choice to believe or not. I urge you to choose wisely. The correct choice is not always the obvious one. I choose faith in God over proof of lies. Wht abt u?
@FreQ247365 So then, if proof of God's existence would conflict with our free will (ability to choose to worship) - why did one of Jesus' apostles get to touch the wounds of Jesus before he believed in the resurrection? Why was he given evidence confirming Jesus had risen from the dead; why was there no conflict with his free will? How could he ask Jesus to show him the wounds before he would believe, yet that wasn't testing 'Him'?
There was no doubt in his mind. Your argument fails.
@57worldwide you miss the point of my comment. My argument is about faith versus proof, not free will. your rebuttal is useless and not germane to the topic.
@FreQ247365 Fail. 'Doubt must exist; there must be reason to be skeptical in order to give man the choice' - not about free will, you say?
Regardless, my example still stands, the apostle had no faith that Jesus had risen from the dead, and, according to the Bible itself, Jesus appeared to him and allowed the apostle to touch Jesus' wounds. He was given proof, because he had no faith. You know, the whole 'blessed are those who believe' nonsense?
@57worldwide Yes, its about faith: "I choose faith in God over proof of lies." Apparently this is too difficult for you to comprehend. My argument does not fail simply because you spuriously invent a new one based on the original out of an inability to grasp its meaning. But to refute your nonsense, I will say that of course you have no reason to believe without evidence, unless you simply have faith.
Respond to this video... Thomas was an Apostle, which is a messenger or ambassador peculiar to religion, which means to say that he was a messenger of the faith, not the evidence. It was thought that as the Son of God that Jesus was beyond death. Thomas believed this. However, upon the crucifixion of Jesus, Thomas began to doubt and lost his faith. Losing faith and never having it are not the same. To RE-affirm his faith he demanded to touch the wounds in order to prove Jesus' deification.
@FreQ247365 So why did he need evidence in order to reaffirm his faith, and why, when someone else in modern times is doubting, does Jesus not appear to him? What were the alleged miracles - cleansing lepers, restoring sight, etc - if not proof? Raising other people from the dead?
Your argument is so simple, yet so flawed. The Bible is full of stories of Jesus proving his divinity, why did he stop?
You say you chose faith in God, but would you do so over proof of fact, and against logic?
@57worldwide Why'd he need evidence? Because he is human. According to the Gospel, Jesus will return. it is a huge event Christians have been waiting for since his ressurrection. It is called The Second Coming. Christ's miracles were not Pr stunts to prove anything. They were simply good works. Do you know nothing of the man? His works are hardly done considering the millions of lives mere faith in Him has restored, and He is not returning on siesta, heathen, He is returning to judge man.
Respond to this video... The beauty of faith, heathen, is that it is beyond proof, fact, or logic. It is of the SUPERnatural, which by definition defies natural explanation. It makes the choice to choose to have faith that much more profound. I choose because I CAN choose, and in doing so fulfill God's intention.
@FreQ247365 According to the Gospel, the second coming of Jesus is over a thousand years overdue. You seem to fail to realise Jesus is not the only person to have made a millenial prophesy.
His works are hardly done? You mean giving credit to someone who is not around is somehow evidence of them still working? Sorry, I don't buy that lie.
Faith is not beyond reason. Your faith is merely lacking reason. I assume you believe in these stories simply because they appeal to you.
@57worldwide Really?!?! A thousand years overdue? you really are a heathen aren't you? "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Matthew 24:36 I am sure there have been a plethora of false-prophets claiming to know the moment of the Second Advent, from Joe Smith to Jerry Falwell and including you apparently, and you all have been as accurate. Those whose lives have been touched by Christ understand how He can work miracles.
@FreQ247365 You don't quote the part where Jesus tells his followers that some of them will see the kingdom in their lifetime... And the part where he tells his audience that that generation won't pass away before he returns. Which means his return is literally thousands of years overdue.
You realise gnosticism was regarded as heresy, by what came to be the orthodox Church?
Like I said, giving credit to someone else when they are not around is not evidence of them still working.
@57worldwide “Some of you will not taste death until you see the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1) The ignorant in Christ read this through a satanic filter of worldly perspectives. you expect an earthly kingdom with Christ sitting on a literal throne in Jerusalem ruling over the world with a literal rod of iron, when He clearly says “My kingdom is not of this world..." (John 18:36)
Respond to this video... you confuse "The coming of the Kingdom of God" Jesus promised that some of his followers would witness with His Second Coming. "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21
Respond to this video... He obviously speaks of a spiritual kingdom, which was established with His Resurrection and subsequent Transfiguration, all of which some of his Disciples DID see. Hardly overdue, we have been living under the reign of Christ since he Resurrected and assumed the throne of his spiritual kingdom.
My religion is knowledge and wisdom and love. This video has given me much to think about, consider, and research from the opposite perspective of Zeitgeist. Thanks.
skcin7 3 weeks ago
texts are commonly repeated to this day, and the allegories they used have been repeated throughout time by many. Asiatic, 'eastern', judiac, vedic, babylonian, sumerian- all these texts contain invaluable information on what the people of these times understood and experienced. If you took the time to not be an ass over it all, youd realize these texts have been mistranslated and twisted. They are the most important things to defining ancient times, and all you do is shout all religion is false
mrcatfacefrog 1 month ago
why are you anti relgious people so stupid about it? The religious people are too, but what is up with you but hurt atheists? I assume you had bad religious experiences forced on you. I am not of faith, yet I don't have to get mad at all this. If you realize that all the words reilgious texts originate from some of the SMARTEST people of the ancient times - then you would see their value. They are like history books, mixed with the flavour of the times. The lessons explained in many of these
mrcatfacefrog 1 month ago
@mrcatfacefrog Zeitgeist's are not Atheist. That's whats crazy they are essentially Pagans yet Atheists are so anti christian they would rather support them and their propaganda.
lion575 4 weeks ago
@lion575 Your probably right true atheists are rare, even a large (minority?) of scientists nowadays drink the kool-aid together and worship their elevated theories like the are infallible and godly. But that pisses of the science/logic/skeptics who can't stand that truth. non of it's bad or good. People fuck it up and make it bad, but if they were strong good-hearted and cared enough - Science, Religion, Government, would all be so much more effective. but they are ALL largely tainted.
mrcatfacefrog 4 weeks ago
You can try to justify it all you want to im not every going to buy into it as true reality and frankly im pissed off at people who try to keep this obvious bullshit alive. The bible is bullshit no matter what you say.
wachnathan 1 month ago
Comment removed
curingaging00 3 months ago
Okay, at least the film begins to attack the arguments (if you want to call them that) put forth in Zeitgeist. The only problem is the discriminating viewer will likely see that this film, despite all the circular logic and rhetoric, actually makes Zeitgeist all the more clear and believable. I'm a somewhat quiet person, but this flick makes me want to scream: "JUST BECAUSE YOU SAY IT DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!"
ParallaxVue 4 months ago
@ParallaxVue Its that zeitgeist that is making empty claims. Anyone who has introduced themselves to the bible can see this. There is movement to destroy religion and to make new religion with purpose to control and enslave us. Unless we develop our own wisdom, we will never know the truth. Peace
aivoetf 4 months ago
post error..."One being that certain events of the BIBLE are allegories of astrology, when in the same book the bible denounces it?"
Melaku85 4 months ago
A friend of mine showed some clips of Zeitgeist claims on the Christian faith. Zeitgeist debunked traces the sources for their claims and its inconsistencies. One being that certain events of the are allegories of astrology, when in the same book the bible denounces it? Also the claims of Acharya S., Albert Churchwood, Gerald Massey, and Thomas Doane, that the deity of Jesus is a copy of the deity horus, is not found in any predating of citations in Egyptian records. I'm going to look into that
Melaku85 4 months ago
@Melaku85 - The New Testament was written by the Romans. They invented Jesus Christianity. The name Flavius is written all over it. I have no idea what all these supposedly educated people are thinking. It has virtually been proven fact that the story of Jesus was back-dated to a generation before the fall of Jerusalem and that Paul was also back-dated, written after the gospels.
Zeitgeist gets you asking questions, it doesn't give you answers.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Actually the New Testament writings predate the Roman Empire's conversion(turned Roman Catholic), by at least 200 years, at 60-90AD. In the lifetime of the historical Jesus, we know Quirinius, literally translated Kyrenios, was governor of Syria(Luke:2:2), Tiberius Caesar was in his fifteenth year reign, Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea in Palestine; Herod was tetrarch or ruler of Galilee; Herod's brother Phillip was tetrarch of Ituraea and Trachonitis of Palestine. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Melaku85 - "Actually the New Testament writings predate the Roman Empire's conversion"
Or so it would appear, but the Romans wrote the New Testament. They only appear to embrace it 200 years later, but they wrote it. The ministry of Jesus is based on the Jewish War. From Titus beginning his campaign at Galilee rights through to Titus having Simon killed in Rome and the sparing of John.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene of Palestine; All provinces of the Roman Empire, with Abilene being given over by Claudias to Herod Agrippa in AD 53. All six politicians predate the Roman conversion to Christianity under Constantine in 325 AD. Before that they were Greek pagans. Its not the Christian faith of these first century scriptures that's the problem. Its the European Romans doing what they've done best; Taking advantage of whatever they can for political power.Con.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Christianity was an eastern faith of the nonwhite poor before Rome's self serving imperialist agenda. It made it to the west as a result of Paul the apostle's efforts, who was a Roman born Jew. This is just simple Philology and scholarship. That's why zeitgeist' sources choose audiences ignorant to scholarship and philology because they don't hold longetivity among circles of historians, philologists,as well as scholars, though they attempt to handle it scholarly. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - Paul never existed. His epistles where written after the Gospels and back-dated to before 70 AD. It is pretty simple to do as it's not real history.
The ONLY way Christianity could of spread so fast throughout the Roman Empire was with the backing of the Roman Empire. You follow?
Forget Zeitgeist. It doesn't explain much, if anything really.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Strictly speaking, the gospels are anonymous. Nevertheless, the uniform testimony of the early church, i.e. the 200 year active church before the conversion of Rome in 313AD, attributes authorship to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. There were no other known competitors for authorship. The fact that these accounts were based on eyewitness material from at least 3 of the 4 authors being unlikely characters, is substantial. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. With the exception of the gospel of John, Mark and Luke weren't even among the 12 disciples, and Matthew as a hated tax collector would've been the most infamous character next to Judas Iscariot. This is the circumstantial evidence for the authorship of 3 of the 4 gospel writers. The discrepancy with the gospel of John is not the name of the author but which person of the name. From Christian writer Papias, dated 125AD, we can't tell if he's referring to 2 Johns or 1
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable In spite of this uncertainty, the testimony of the earlier church is unanimous that John the apostle(not baptist), son of Zebedee, is author of the fourth gospel. We have at least 2 pre-Roman council writings from the early church fathers confirming authorship of the other 3 gospels, from Papias 125AD, and Irenaeus dated 180AD. Papias affirmed that Mark accurately recorded Peter's eyewitness observations, making no false statement and that Matthew preserved the teachings as well.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Irenaeus of 180AD, stated, that Matthew published his own gospel in Hebrew tongue, when Peter and PAUL founded churches and preached the gospel. He states further that after their departure, Mark, the disciplined interpreter and disciple of Peter, himself handed down his gospel to them. He also stated that Luke, follower of PAUL, set down in a book the gospel preached by his teacher. Last but not least, he stated that John the disciple of the Lord, produced his gospel at Ephesus
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. As for the methods of Historiography and Higher Criticism, scholars use to determine authorship, there is the explicit identification of the author in the text, or the implicit identification using autobiographical details. Not only does Paul mention being imprisoned in his writings, they all share common themes, emphasis, vocabulary, and style; They exhibit a uniform doctrine around the Mosaic Law; All of these letters fit into the time of Paul's missionary journeys
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - So you think that the Romans, being the culturally aware and supremely intelligent, where not culturally aware or intelligent enough to produce the New Testament? Because that is all it boils down to. Could they do it? Yes, of course they could and they did.
Higher Criticism ONLY cite Paul as the author because the author tells us his name is Paul. That's it. How very scientific.
You think that because Paul states he was imprisoned that is evidence for his authorship? Really?
cont
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable"So you think the Romans, being culturally aware and SUPREMELY INTELLIGENT(?), were not culturally aware or intelligent enough to produce the New Testament?" Now you're just treading on wishful thinking. History shows the philosophers of Greece that refined Rome, visited Egypt(Kemet-land of the blacks) to learn from their priests for SUPREME INTELLIGENCE. Pythagoras stayed 22 years, as well as Plato, Eudoxus, Thales, Anaximander, Anaximenes, Heraclitus, and Socrates in 6BC Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - Do you think the Romans had the brains, motive and means to do this? Simple question. And if not then why?
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Not at all. Rome had nothing to gain from this during AD 40-100. This much emphasis on a culture other than Rome would place that particular culture to a divine status, take the attention off the greatness of their mythology, and render the dominant Roman culture with its many Roman gods, obsolete. To forget a then 1,000 year religious tradition(Rome's religious beliefs date as far back as 800 BC) for a foreign one, given Rome's national pride is absurd.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - "there is no evidence under scientific analysis, to attribute authorship to them"
The NT was written in koine greek by unknowns. So that makes no sense whatsoever.
"The Romans were never concerned about the RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS of Jews"
Are you on crack? Did FLAVIUS Josephus know nothing or have nothing to do with religious affairs?
"sit in on Jewish festivals" - They destroyed them and took over.
"Jewish authorship is undisputed in scholarly circles" - That's you giving up.
cont
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - "given Rome's national pride is absurd"
The Empire is new. The Roman Emperor is fairly new. The civil war and the Jews had taught them much. If they could take Judaism, give it to the normal folk, do away with circumcision, certain eating habits, then the growing numbers of Jews (10% of Rome) could convert whilst still holding onto Abraham, Moses, etc.
By your thinking, it was EVEN crazier then that Constantine would forget 1,000 years of religious tradition and worship a Jew. No?
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - cont'd
You have not explained why Paul cannot be back-dated. If he can, which he was, then the gospels are satire and the Romans gave us Christianity.
The sooner you realise that the Romans where an evolving political power the better. Maybe then you'll stop underestimating them and realise the obvious truth.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable There was nothing ORIGINAL about knowledge of the Romans, and there is no evidence under scientific analysis, to attribute authorship to them. The Romans were never concerned about the RELIGIOUS AFFAIRS of Jews, so as to study Judaism, echo the moral ideal of the Torah, sit in on Jewish festivals, as well as give insight to Jewish customs and frame of mind. You can dismiss me with your predictions. Evidence for Jewish authorship is undisputed in scholarly circles
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - Cont'd
I predict future scholarship will explain the synoptic gospels where written first. Then Acts and John where written followed by the Pauline Epistles. The Holy Spirit becomes more "involved" after the synoptics, indicating those works where written under the reign of Domitian.
The life and works of Josephus are used to construct Paul and his adventures. That is how we get "accuracies" in culture, themes, vocabulary and style.
You underestimate the Romans.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. If they want to oppose something, they should oppose the history of their ancestors for using a faith foreign to them for oppression of the Jews and other nonwhites, as well as the poor, with the military power to change the rules. Christianity is an eastern faith in origin, not a western Roman Catholic one.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - The eastern empire wrote in Koine Greek, how the New Testament was written. The western empire tended to write in latin. The education of the aristocratic Romans was such that they could probably speak/write in more then two languages. Anyway...
Jesus Christianity did not appear until after 70 AD. Nero persecuted the zealots not the Jesus Christians.
Luke & Acts is dedicated to Theophilus / Flavius Sabinus, brother of Vespasian (the father). And uncle to Titus (the good son).
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Evidence for the existence of Paul is made in the historical document of Acts, as well as the affirmation of Irenaeus. These characters whose existence aren't disputed, attest of Paul's existence
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - Thank you for that reminder of tradition. The New Testament is fictional history. Acts is not actual history, so to use it as evidence for the historical Paul is ridiculous.
The gospels are clearly based on the Roman-Jewish war, they are comical, satirical and obviously fictional. This means the New Testament was written by the Romans. That means Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc are fictional characters.
If that is the case, which it is, then Irenaeus is also bogus.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Not believing in orthodox Christianity is one thing; makes me the least bit of difference. Nevertheless, stating repetitiously your OPINION of the New Testament being fictional history, as if these statements alone will suffice, with no philological and/or archaeological explanation, is profound ignorance. The proof of these claims come from the scientific research of philological analysis, paleography, linguistic, and papyrology laboratories, and microfilm archives.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - You want real proof that makes it obvious? Fine.
Roman-Jewish War - 5 events in sequence
1) Titus begins at Galilee, his men fish the enemy from the water
2) Titus at Gadara, "wild beasts" that flee into the water
3) In Jerusalem, woman called Mary eats her own child during passover
4) Three men crucified, one survives
5) Simon killed in Rome, John is spared
The Gospels BASED on the War, clearly, and that is just a couple of examples. You want more?
cont'd
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Thank you for the historical reflection on the Jewish War of 70AD, that by your own admission, though sarcastic, was predicted by Jesus. Your initial premise whether implicit or explicit, is that all 29 books of the sacred writings, known as The New Testament, are not authentic documents. Not even the faith-based portions undermine in anyway the authenticity of the documents. Again this is already confirmed through the scientific analysis of philology, paleography, and papyrology
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - "Again this is already confirmed through the scientific analysis of philology, paleography, and papyrology"
This proves the authors does it? Nope. What on earth are you talking about? And these tests told us what exactly?
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable "This proves the authors does it?Nope"
How about yes. And I have no problem explaining the analysis but I may not need to, at least not yet. If the sacred 29 books or writings, known as the New Testament are dated between about 60AD and 90AD, preceded by the Old Testament writings dated between 1500 and 500BC, how do you explain the Old Testament prophetic predictions hundreds of years ago, fulfilled in the Jesus of the New Testament?
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - How do I explain the prophecies from the Old Testament coming true in the New Testament?
Considering that the New Testament is a fictional history, then it's authors simply READ the "Old Testament" and made the prophecies come true. Could you of asked me an easier question?
I think we best move along to you explaining the analysis and how it proves the authors.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable It was worth a shot. "Considering that the New Testament is fictional history, then its AUTHORS simply read the Old Testament and made the prophecies come true," sounds like you indirectly proved my point. Most of the time when individuals make that statement, their dispute is not the authors OF Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and James, but their claims
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - Are you purposely avoiding explaining the analysis just so you can talk in riddles?
You asked a question, I answered it logically. Are you suggesting that the writers of the New Testament had never read the "Old Testament"? Are you suggesting that these "Jews" had absolutely no idea that the Jewish people where awaiting a Messiah?
If you don't mind, could you just explain the analysis?
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Sure. First, here's what has been established HISTORICALLY for the reliability of the New Testament. As if the writers of the early Church outside the bible who affirm the scriptures aren't enough such as Papias and Irenaeus, here are non- christian sources: Suetonius(chief secretary to emperor Hadrian; reigned AD 117-138) confirms the report of Acts 18:2 that Claudias commanded all Jews(among them Acquilla and Priscila) to leave Rom in AD 49.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. Josephus(AD 37-100) confirmed the martyrdom of John the Baptist; Referred to Jesus as the brother of James who was stoned to death. This reference to Jesus confirms that he was a real person(for zeitgeist skeptics), that he was identified by others as the Christ, and that he had a brother who died a martyr's death at the hands of high priest, Albinus and his Sanhedrin. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. Thallus wrote around AD 52. Thallus recorded the darkness following the crucifixion, as well as the earthquake documented in the gospels. Thallus explains the darkness as a solar eclipse, but also reports Jesus' crucifixion occurred during a full moon. A solar eclipse cannot take place during a full moon. Pliny The Younger(Roman author and administrator) wrote a letter to Emperor Trajan in AD 112. In it he described early christian worship practices. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. He described how they meet before sunlight, take an oath not to do wicked deeds, then they would partake of food. This confirms the early church practice of breaking bread documented in Acts 2;42,46. I'll be back to share more, my wife's bugging me lol
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - 1) Thallus? "but also reports Jesus' crucifixion occurred during a full moon" - He doesn't even mention Jesus. No-one is sure when he wrote. I am actually shocked you mention him.
2) Early church fathers - If the New Testament is bogus, which it is, the why on earth would we believe in church fathers and what they have to say?
3) Suetonius? Roman hierarchy. Close with the Flavian Emperors (who the NT is based around).
cont'd
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - cont'd
4) Josephus FLAVIUS - His life and work is used to construct the majority of the New Testament and he is the first and only one to mention Jesus by name. HIghly suspicious and a provider of bogus historicity for creations such as John the Baptist and Jesus.
5) Pliny and Tactius are very, very close with the Flavians. Plinys use of rhetoric means he advertises Christianity, confirms Martyrs and distances Rome from the creation of this religion. They all work for Titus.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable The primary sources for the life of Christ come from the four gospels. Nevertheless there are significant reports from NON-CHRISTIAN sources that confirm the gospel accounts. They come from Greek, Roman, Jewish, and Samaritan sources. The New Testament writings date from AD 50 to AD 90. The earliest surviving fragments date to AD 120 and some 50 fragments date within 100 years of that time. Approximately 5,686 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament still exist.Cont
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. In addition to the Greek manuscripts, more than 19,000 manuscripts exist in other languages. NO OTHER DOCUMENT OF ANTIQUITY COMES CLOSER IN RELIABILITY. Homer's Illiad comes second with 643 manuscripts surviving.Cont
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. Here's the scientific analysis for a historical document. There are two most important factors in determining its reliability: the number of manuscript copies in existence, the time when it was first written, and the oldest existing copy. Compare the New Testament with other ancient writer's works. Cont
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - You are literally telling me NOTHING and I had such high hopes. I fail to see how anything you are saying disproves Roman authorship of the New Testament. Only the Pauline Epistles date from before 70, but I am saying they are back-dated to appear like they where written during that time. I hear nothing disproving that.
An earlier version of Mark (Ur Marcus) was maybe before 70, but that is a big maybe.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable It was important to first clarify that the New Testament successfully completes the scientific analysis for a historically reliable document. As if circumstantial evidence of the geographic and cultural origins for a JUDEO-CHRISTIAN FAITH aren't obvious enough for JEWISH AUTHORSHIP, at a time(AD 40-100) when Romans focused exclusively on their Egyptian-copied, pantheon of gods, there's other factors. Concerning authorship, scholars use Historiography and Higher Criticism. CONT.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable CONT. Concerning the JEWISH AUTHORSHIP of the New Testament, its important to note that the majority Jewish and Christian community agree to this fact. The pages of the New Testament follow the framework of Judaism: Echos instruction from the Torah; First four gospels address a Jewish audience; Jesus presence in the synagogues of reported miracles, scroll readings, etc. were Jewish places of worship; Writings give insight to Jewish customs, thoughts, and beliefs.Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Back from computer repair. Now as for the dating of the Pauline gospels: Romans, 1st Corinthians, 2nd Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1st Thessalonians, 2nd Thessalonians; according to scholars is dated between AD 49-67. Pauline authorship and this time frame are already established and there is no dispute about it in academic circles.CONT.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable CONT. If it is scholarly established that the New Testament is historically reliable, then the narrative of Paul's life and ministry from Acts of the Apostles, is the writings scholars have observed to locate the origin of his authorship, as well as dates, by analyzing the context of his life in this period. "The New Testament was written in Koine Greek by UNKNOWNS?" You said the authorship is unknown because you refuse to accept the broad scholarship for one article; Not enough.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - The New Testament was written by the Alexanders, Herodians and Flavians.
Philo is the "father" of Christianity and his brothers could not be more connected. The three brothers received a thorough education in the Egyptian, Jewish, Greek and Roman cultures, particularly in the traditions of Judaism, the study of the Old Testament and in Greek Philosophy.
Philo’s writings can be seen as an effort to inject Stoicism into Judaism (pre-70 AD) to pacify rebellious Jews.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - cont'd
Does that sound a little more understanding of the scholarship? That means Paul could of existed, but that would mean Josephus was bogus. They both cannot have such matching lives and have both existed, surely.
"by analyzing the context of his life in this period" - But if Josephus' life from this SAME period was used in constructing Paul then that proves the author of Paul did his research. Historical reliability.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Your claims for a Roman invented Christianity comes from the Piso Theory(also known as Roman Piso theory), developed by Abelard Reuchlin in 1979, and followed up by Joseph Atwill from his 2003 book, Caesar's Messiah. This theory claims the New Testament was written by the Calpurnius Piso family, supposedly made up of Cleopatra, the Ptolemy's, Pythagoras, "Flavius" Joseph, and Roman Emperor Titus "Flavius" Vespasiani Cont.d
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont'd. Atwill's '79 theory doesn't go beyond this. His claims are found no where in classical scholarship, nor are they recorded in The Journal of Roman Studies. A Net search of the name "Arrius Calpurnius Piso" is found only on websites that favor the theory. This name is found nowhere on sites dedicated to Roman history, Latin studies, or anywhere dealing with SERIOUS SCHOLARSHIP. So before you state, "Paul never existed," as in your earlier posts, check your Piso theory
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable As for Joseph Atwill's later claim of Emperor Titus being the inventor of Christianity, he exceeds his predecessor Abelard Reuchlin in further developing this theory, by at least USING A REAL PERSON THIS TIME. Nevertheless here's Atwill's errors: Atwill says he couldn't perceive how Judaism could produce 2 movements as diametrically opposed as the warlike Sicarri and the "peace" advocating Jesus. This is poor perspective. One may as well ask how 20 century society made X and King
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont'd The reality that Atwill failed to realize was that Jesus message itself was not going to bring peace but a sword as he stated. The gospel or good news in its moral precepts and allegiance was hostile to Roman authority as well as the culture of society. Atwill missed this research and shows his lack of study on the subject. Secondly he supposes that Jesus was invented to attract militaristic, messianic Jews.; yet Jesus was the exact opposite figure of a military symbol.Cont
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - So Atwill failed to realise that Jesus was not bringing peace but a sword?
"Jesus coming with a sword in Matt 10 refers to Titus’s return at Book 4, 1, line 70. In the passage Titus slays a number of Jews and then traps another group next to a cliff where the men “threw their children and their wives down the cliff. In other words, – a man against his father, a daughter against her mother.” Vicious Roman typology" - Atwill
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. "How is Atwill a continuation of Piso, Reuchlin mentions nothing of Titus/Jesus and satirical parallels?," ...."the evidence is completely different." NOW ARE YOU ON CRACK? Piso theory, Flavian Hypothesis, or any advocates of a Roman invention of the New Testament are all under the same umbrella. Of course with time there's an evolution of variations by the authors, because it has to draw attention to the new advocate. No audience will give attention to redundancy. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. In fact, Colleges are using his supportive sites for his theories in classrooms to show its absurdity. His features you listed for his upcoming film are all laughing stocks in classical scholarship and get no recognition. Good luck on that support
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - cont'd
So Robert Eisenman get no recognition? Seyoon Kim gets no recognition? John Hudson? Carotta?
Complete and utter nonsense.
Robert Price may mock Atwill, but he virtually worships Eisenman. And now Eisenman is standing alongside Atwill, proving Price to be an absolute mug.
Bauer came out with his theory at a time when NO-ONE DARED, but that was back in the "dark ages", hope you see the light soon.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable "Bauer came out with his theory at a time when no one dared." More like, Bauer was foolish enough to recreate Christian history in spite of the the existing evidence against it. These claims in essence are neither theories nor hypotheses. A theory is SATISFACTORILY TESTED OR PROVEN; A hypothesis is USED TO DENOTE CONJECTURES OR PROPOSED DESCRIPTIONS OR MODELS WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN TESTED OR PROVEN TO THE SAME STANDARD. Their claims fall in neither idea. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable These ideas are nothing more than deliberate fabrications. You can give me all the bogus claims you want for the Flavian Hypothesis. Until Atwill stops making websites and documentaries that deceive the scholarly ignorant, and until he strikes a home run in recognition from Latin studies or The Journal of Roman Studies, this theory of Roman authorship of the New Testament will go only so far at best; At worst it'll fade to black.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - According to Seyoon Kim, many of the religious terms found in the NT were used in the literature of the Imperial Cult. This is coming from someone who studied with F.F. Bruce. This is from a book written in 2008. Now what?
You says it's fading away, but the complete opposite is happening?
Bauer reminds me of Dessau. The only difference being H.A doesn't have millions of religious vultures ready to attack. Also, H.A is evidence of common practice.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable "According to Seyoon Kim, many of the religious terms found in the NT were used in the literature of the Imperial Cult." And this proves what exactly? How does this in anyway undermine the reliability and authorship of the New Testament which is your argument. "This is coming from someone who studied with F.F. Bruce." So they were college students together, so what. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable F.F. Bruce is the only reliable name on this matter that you've mentioned all month. Here's a couple of his books that you conveniently left out: "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable;" "The Canon of Scripture."
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont.The claim by Atwill aforementioned shows his lack of ancient social psychology. Last but not least, Atwill openly contradicts himself for claiming to not see how Judaism could produce such diametric opposites, yet argues that Christianity was built to make these opposites attract. In other words, he theorizes that Judaism would not produce such a group, but hypothesizes in the same breath that Jews then converted to such a group. There are many errors that expose this THEORY
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - How is Atwill a continuation of Piso, Reuchlin mentions nothing of Titus/Jesus and satirical parallels? The theories meet at certain points, but the evidence is completely different. Atwill picked up on parallels scholars had already noted, adds to them and discovers sequences.
You spend 3 comments discussing one possible problem that's not even a problem (Mountain out of mole hill). Why would Jews have diametrically opposite Messiahs? They didn't. The Romans invented one.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable These so called scholars/skeptics developed their premises on the foundation of AUTHORS. Joseph Atwill and his "black sheep" camaraderie have Bruno Bauer to thank, who started this propaganda in his 1877 book, Christ and Caesars. He was the first to THEORIZE Roman authorship of the New Testament and claimed "Flavius" Josephus invented Jesus; Ring a bell? Next was James Ballantyne Hannay who claimed Roman authorship in a series of articles and pamphlets in 1925. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. Hannay also published a book this same year entitled, The Rise, Fall, and Decline of the Roman Religion. Four years later Abelard Reuchlin published his book under this umbrella of theory of Roman authorship entitled, The True Authorship of the New Testament. Finally there's the new school of Joseph Atwill keeping this tradition alive with his 2003 book entitled, Caesar's Messiah. Christ and Caesars(Bauer-1877); Caesar's Messiah(Atwill-2003); Now there's a satirical parallel
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - What are you talking about? How about these books that support Roman authorship, you've not mentioned them.
Seyoon Kim's 'Christ and Caesar' - Religious terms found in the NT were used in the literature of the Imperial Cult.
Carotta's 'Jesus was Caesar' - Explaining how J.Christ was the deified J.Caesar and in turn how J.Caesar was the historical J.Christ.
Both works fully supportive of Atwill, Hannay and Bauer - Roman authorship.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable "How about these books that support Roman authorship, you've not mentioned them." Either you have poor reading comprehension skills or you haven't read my previous comments; I mentioned the books from Bauer, Hannay, Reuchlin, the pioneers of the theory. Atwill and the others are advocates with their own twist. Atwill, his supporters, and the supporters of his supporters ARE ALL LAUGHING STOCKS OF CLASSICAL SCHOLARSHIP. Their Piso THEORY AND Flavian HYPOTHESIS is just that. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - cont'd
You're not dealing with Carotta or Kim. That's the equivalent of dealing with Dessau and ignoring Syme, especially Kim.
"Bauer was foolish enough to recreate Christian history in spite of the the existing evidence against it"
WHAT EVIDENCE? Jesus and Paul have ZERO historicity. No contemporary records exist you dingbat. Tell me what evidence you're referring to that prevents Roman authorship (those linked to the Flavians).
Franknarfable 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Franknarfable "WHAT EVIDENCE? Jesus and Paul have zero historicity. I proved this a week ago explaining that the New Testament successfully completes the scientific analysis for reliability.There are two most important factors in determining its reliability: the number of manuscript copies in existence, the time when it was first written, and the oldest existing copy. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Franknarfable Again, The New Testament writings date from AD 50 to AD 90. The earliest surviving fragments date to AD 120 and some 50 fragments date within 100 years of that time. Approximately 5,686 Greek manuscripts of all or part of the New Testament still exist. In addition to the Greek manuscripts, more than 19,000 manuscripts exist in other languages. NO OTHER DOCUMENT OF ANTIQUITY COMES CLOSER IN RELIABILITY. Homer's Illiad comes second with 643 manuscripts surviving. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Franknarfable Cont. That being said, if the New Testament is proven to be reliable, then the primary sources for the life of Christ come from the four gospels. The narrative of Paul's life and ministry from Acts of the Apostles, is the writings scholars have observed to locate the origin of his authorship, as well as dates, by analyzing the context of his life in this period. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Correction on my second comment. The New Testament actually dates from AD 40-100AD. Ten years off.
Melaku85 3 months ago
Comment removed
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - There are a few recent discoveries that need explaining. Carotta's parallels death between Jesus and Caesar, Atwills Flavian parallels and the ever expanding Josephus/Paul parallels.
They are there and do need explaining.
There is far more evidence for literary design then there is for historicity of Jesus and Paul. The parallels between Paul and Josephus are a real problem for ANY theory on him.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable "There are a few recent discoveries that need explaining. Carotta's parallels death between Jesus and Caesar, Atwills Flavian parallels and the ever expanding Josephus/Paul parallels."
Two words describe this HAZY method most propagated by practically all skeptic theorists: COPYCAT THESIS. First, A THESIS IS NOTHING MORE THAN A PROPOSITION ADVANCED AS AN ARGUMENT. Cont.
Melaku85 2 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. So in the environment of scholarship, the scientific and fundamental grounds for these claims as has been discussed throughout this debate, are that they neither qualify as fact, history, or theory. According to the strictest scholarship, THESE CLAIMS ARE AT BEST a HY-POTH-ESIS or THESIS. Copycat thesis or copycat parallels are the same imaginative methodology used in the Flavian hypothesis-Josephus/Paul; Roman Piso-Christ/Caesar; Jesus/Virishna; Jesus/Horus. Cont.
Melaku85 2 months ago
@Franknarfable Cont. Copycat parallels rely heavily upon vague generalization, the collapsing and dulling of terms and specifics, interpretation of evidence as broadly as possible, and significant creativity by the author. Using such methods, it's possible to relegate any story or person to the realm of myth. Case in point: Frances Utley, author of Lincoln Wasn't There. In it, Utley used the same formula for parallels and typology to support his thesis that Abraham Lincoln was a myth;Believe em?
Melaku85 2 months ago
@Melaku85 - "Flavian hypothesis-Josephus/Paul; Roman Piso-Christ/Caesar; Jesus/Virishna; Jesus/Horus"
ALL point to the SAME conclusions, therefore all complimenting each other. Result? The New Testament is FICTIONAL literature.
Whereas the historical New Testament is supported by ZERO evidence. Outside evidence for Paul of Tarsus? Non-existent. Outside evidence for Jesus Christ? Zero.
Take your pick.
You've not looked into Paul/Josephus, or read Atwill or Carotta. You're not fully informed.
Franknarfable 2 months ago
@Franknarfable "All point to the SAME conclusions, therefore all complimenting each other. Result? The New Testament is FICTIONAL literature?" You just restated your initial argument with no in depth reply to the faulty premises aforementioned; what a weak response
"Whereas the historical New Testament is supported by zero evidence. Outside evidence for Paul of Taurus? Non- existent. Outside evidence for Jesus Christ? Zero." Fortunately your sources, conclusions, and predictions are disproven
Melaku85 2 months ago
@Franknarfable You've not looked into Paul/Josephus, or read Atwill or Carotta. You're not fully informed." I researched the origins for the earliest sources of your claims, gave their names, books, and the names of their theories(which turned out to be methods of COPYCAT PARALLELS, TO DEVELOP A THESIS AND/OR HYPOTHESIS. I'd say this is plenty of INFORM-ATION.These ideas are disproven by majority scholars under the strictest scholarship. This same scholarship validates the New Testament.
Melaku85 2 months ago
@Melaku85 - I've made my points and provided sources. You cannot support your comments. The New Testament is a work of fiction and only a complete fool would argue otherwise. So go right ahead and talk yourself into a hole. You've researched nothing and read nothing.
Franknarfable 2 months ago
@Franknarfable If you can continue to make claims rooted in the same methodology for parallels and typology that was fundamentally used to claim Abraham Lincoln as a myth, then it is apparent who the complete fool is. Do yourself a favor and broaden your spectrum of research for scholarship that doesn't continue this amusing pattern. "So go right ahead and talk yourself into a hole." If talking to you is analogous to talking into a hole, thanks for the heads up; last comment to a hollow space.
Melaku85 2 months ago
@Melaku85 - How many parallels in the Ab Lincoln myth?
I got HUNDREDS of parallels. Some for Paul, some for Jesus, some for Simon, John, Mary, EVERYONE, it's ENDLESS. Many of them have MATCHING SEQUENCES. To compare it to Lincoln makes you foolish and proves you've read nothing.
What do you suggest I research to broaden my spectrum? Any recommendations? I am happy to go read if you think I've missed anything. Suggestions please.
Franknarfable 2 months ago
@Franknarfable Author, Frances Utley, used 22 copycat parallels or typology between Lincoln and a mythical hero. It's actually an incomplete thesis paper. F.F. Bruce "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable," Josh Mcdowell "Evidence That Demands A Verdict," and Lee Strobel(former skeptic) "The Case For The Real Christ," present some of the strongest arguments for the New Testament's reliability and Jesus.
Melaku85 2 months ago
@Franknarfable Perhaps if you were willing to get F.F. Bruce book, "The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable," I could likewise get this book and any book of your recommendation. If you'd like, we could both read these two books together to see how they hold up to the scrutiny of critics, as well as comparing their claims to methods of the strictest scholarship.
Melaku85 2 months ago
@Melaku85 - I will look into getting a hold of that book. I am interested in learning different ideas.
I realise that scholars keep on dismissing parallels, but as they build up, of which they are voluminous, it becomes more and more likely that this is constructed fictional literature. It's not like these parallels all point in different directions either, they point directly to the name Flavius. The NT is full of historical accuracies, it's just the main characters that are fictional.
Thanks
Franknarfable 2 months ago
@Franknarfable You're welcome. Great debate; longest and most informative debate I'd been in thus far. Before you I was not even aware of these challenges brought forth. At the end of the day, truth is key. It's quest is a raw human need that pangs some more than others. Hope those books answers some fundamental questions as it did for me
Melaku85 2 months ago
@Franknarfable Unless Atwill's claims as well your echoes of him, followed by other advocates, are recognized in authentic circles of classical scholarship such as Latin studies, sites dedicated to Roman history outside this inner circle, or gets recorded in The Journal of Roman Studies, this is just another fairy tale. "My ideas on Paul are my ideas btw?" Please leave that to the scholars btw.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Franknarfable Your own advocates of this theory don't even mention Atwill without also mentioning Bauer, Hannay, and Reuchlin in the same breath. Websites such as angelfire and webspawner are a case in point. These websites support ROMAN AUTHORSHIP OF THE NEW TESTAMENT and provide links for all these theories for research. "After the release of his next book and Hudsons similar book on structural analysis, I THINK THERE'LL BE MORE SUPPORT AGAIN?' There never was. Cont.
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - It seems Atwill is doing quite well. His coming documentary features Robert Eisenman, John Hudson, Ken Humphreys, Rod Blackhirst, Acharya S / D.M. Murdock, and Timothy Freke. All happy to stand alongside him and his findings. After the release of his next book and Hudsons similar book on structural analysis, I think there'll be more support again.
My ideas on Paul are my ideas btw. It seems everyone has a different idea about him. Atwill gives his opinion on Paul in next book.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - cont'd
Thank you for the trip down memory lane. I enjoyed stopping off at all of the old "evidence" of historicity, can you stop stalling now and explain how we know Paul dates to before 70 AD?
I think the Paul from Acts came first and Paul from the Epistles came later. In fact, the chronology of authorship goes... 1) Gospels - 2) Acts - 3) Pauls letters - 4) Revelations
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Franknarfable CONT. The discrepancy here is the conclusions you've drawn surrounding the Jewish War. Give me the source/es from where you gathered these conclusions?
Melaku85 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - cont'd
Google - Satirical Parallels Between Josephus and the NT - then read, you can then of course go and check the New Testament and Josephus to confirm that the typology is correct.
Franknarfable 3 months ago
@Melaku85 - cont'd
My opinion is based on the actual historical writings, as you can see.
Jesus predicts the fall of Jerusalem a generation later. He predicts the death of Simon and the sparing of John. Titus fulfills all of these. Simply, Titus came first and the predictions where written later.
Following capture on the Mount of Olives, Josephus reveals a passage in which Titus states that three times he has exhorted Simon to "peace" and three times he had been denied.
You see? There's more
Franknarfable 3 months ago
call me whatever you want to call me but this video isnt helping the 'Christian's' cause.... this makes no sense yet claims to make perfect sense? The bible is a series of books turned into spark notes, once u realize that, u r in my eyes a true 'Christian'
ME3RZ11 5 months ago
@ME3RZ11 This video is designed to refute the zeitgeist movement, And your series of books turned into spark notes statement makes no sense at all. Have you ever read the Bible? or just a few parts? Most people that make statements like that usually are from people speaking about something they do not know.
spicecrop 5 months ago
@spicecrop - I am a born raised Catholic, I have read the Bible several times, my grandfather was a Deacon and he taught all 36 of us at the time the ways of the Lord.(over 115+ ppl in my family one side now) and we all share the same Catholic belief as my Grandfather taught us. What I meant by what I wrote was this documentary only covers the Religious Aspect of the Zeitgeist movement.(which I agree with) but this video only covers a 5th of what Zeitgeist is ALL about, its not only religion :/
ME3RZ11 5 months ago
8:56 True, she's not a virgin. But she still does have a "virgin birth", her son divinely conceived rather than from mortal sex.
"According to Bhagavata Purana it is believed that Krishna was born without a sexual union, by "mental transmission" from the mind of Vasudeva into the womb of Devaki."
BoggiD101 5 months ago
Christian doctrine has not remained the same. Even if it did, it doesn't make it true. It just says that Chrsitian dogma is more dogmatic.
BoggiD101 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@BoggiD101 what i jsut saw is, christian doctrine has changed i don't believe it, but if it hasn't changed, i won't believe it either. look man, there is well enough evidence for the historical accounts of miracles in the bible, search up mount sinai in saudi arabia, and the real soddom and gomorah. you'll see everythign you need to know to ratio9nally believe in the bible, but either you won't look it up or youll say "well this still doesn't prove anything" i can't help but try though.god bless
IWantToKnowChrist 5 months ago
Even in modern times, the idea of God went through much change. How much persecution and scisms have happened throughout Christian history because of conflicting basic ideas. Martin Luther believed only grace through faith could absolve people into heaven and not paying cash to the Church.
Puritans fled England to the New World because they believed only faith itself gave salvation without rituals observed both by Catholics and Protestants.
BoggiD101 5 months ago
6:18 God has not been the same. "A History of God" shows how our concept of God went through many changes from the highest pagan god El-Shaddai who mortals formed personal packs with to the war god Yahweh depicted as draconian and bloodthirsty in books like Judges and Deuteronomy and God as a personal, transcendent idea by the Common Era.
BoggiD101 5 months ago
religion makes you stupid, you cannot think on your own only repeat what you have been told. Just believe and shut up don't try to make your stupid shit valid to free thinkers
fataldesain 6 months ago
@fataldesain In your purely naturalistic worldview, do you know have reason to think? If you are a thinking person, you would be using logic wouldn't you? Logic is not a naturalistic entity. It exists beyond the realm of naturalism. How can you appeal to logic when naturalism is all there is? Also, your statement is quite ignorant. I can declare you are not a free thinker and you are only parroting what you've been taught growing up. There is no way to back that up. Pointless comment.
evAngeliis 6 months ago
@fataldesain Free thought won't save you in the end.
panzergrenadier1941 5 months ago
I have failed to see anything refuted and I am convinced this man actually likes the zeitgeist.. Why does he keep asking for the original documents to prove the claims? I now ask him to provide the original documents to prove the biblical claims.. The bible is and has always been symbolic so each of those stories in the bible has an esoteric aspect.. Exoteric religion on the other hand is what dominates the world today and is fucking up the our temporary earthly joint.
berxamag 6 months ago
the reason they say the things 1:35 is probably because it was a way to keep followers away from looking up at the sky to shun them away from the answer the government conceals. hence social control.
MajorisVYCanis 6 months ago
@NWOisdead you do know the bible says trust and love your government with all your hearts and give money to the vatican or go to hell 10% read the bible for yourself
mohawkChristianUFO 6 months ago
@mohawkChristianUFO That's in the Old Testament you blasphemer.
panzergrenadier1941 5 months ago
@panzergrenadier1941 even jesus says to follow the rules of the old testement
mohawkChristianUFO 4 months ago
@mohawkChristianUFO Doh. It's all part of the Zionist conspiracy to take over the world man.
panzergrenadier1941 4 months ago
@panzergrenadier1941 IF SATAN REALLY CORRUPTED THE BIBLE AND WANTED ALL OF US TO GO TO HELL WITH HIM ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS RIP OUT A FEW MEASLY PAGES FROM THE BIBLE THAT MENTION JESUS SO WE DONT KNOW JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN, NOT TO MENTION THAT HIS MASTER PLAN IS APPERENTLY IN BOOK OF RELEVELATION, DID IT NOT OCCUR TO HIM THAT PEOPLE KNOWING HIS MASTER PLAN MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE LONG RUN HE COUDLVE SCRIBBLED OVER IT OR RIP IT OUT OR EVEN BURN THE BOOK WHOLE, SORRY OF FOR THE CAPS
mohawkChristianUFO 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@panzergrenadier1941 IF SATAN REALLY CORRUPTED THE BIBLE AND WANTED ALL OF US TO GO TO HELL WITH HIM ALL HE HAD TO DO WAS RIP OUT A FEW MEASLY PAGES FROM THE BIBLE THAT MENTION JESUS SO WE DONT KNOW JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN, NOT TO MENTION THAT HIS MASTER PLAN IS APPERENTLY IN BOOK OF RELEVELATION, DID IT NOT OCCUR TO HIM THAT PEOPLE KNOWING HIS MASTER PLAN MIGHT HAVE A PROBLEM IN THE LONG RUN HE COUDLVE SCRIBBLED OVER IT OR RIP IT OUT OR EVEN BURN THE BOOK WHOLE, SORRY OF FOR THE CAPS
mohawkChristianUFO 4 months ago
@mohawkChristianUFO im not yelling just had caps locked on by accident, all im saying is if i was satans right hand man i wouldve done a way better job of corrupting it
satans minion: while we were corrupting the bible we noticed in the revelations thats your master plan is in it
you want us to just scribble over it?
satan: umm.... thats not gonna be a probelm
satans minion: are you sure cause im no genius but if people know about the false christ it might be a toughie
satan:na!
mohawkChristianUFO 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Harold Camping was RIGHT about May 21, click on my channel to see...
youneekk 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
And yes, there are other religions that predate Christianity that have very similar themes. Zoroastrianism predates christianity and it teaches about a coming world savior (called the Saoshyant), who will be miraculously born to a virgin. Christianity is not as original and novel as most Christians realize.
tekbarrier 7 months ago
And yes, there are other religions that predate Christianity that have very similar themes. Zoroastrianism predates christianity and it teaches about a coming world savior (called the Saoshyant), who will be miraculously born to a virgin. Christianity is not as original and novel as most Christians realize.
tekbarrier 7 months ago
And yes, there are other religions that predate Christianity that have very similar themes. Zoroastrianism predates christianity and it teaches about a coming world savior (called the Saoshyant), who will be miraculously born to a virgin. Christianity is not as original and novel as most Christians realize.
tekbarrier 7 months ago
Some of what zeitgeist says about Christianity is poorly researched bullshit (or at least they only cite sources that support their preconceived conclusions). But their larger point, that Christianity is historically unreliable, is spot on. There was nothing written during the supposed lifetime of Jesus that makes any mention of him. Nothing. The earliest writings that mention him came years, if not a couple decades or more, after he is said to have died. I find that very suspicious.
tekbarrier 7 months ago
The "good book" also says that a RAPED woman MUST MARRY her rapist & her rapist must pay the raped woman's father SILVER for the crime! HE is not allowed to divorce HER, it states. THATS GOD'S JUSTICE? And if a woman is found NOT to be a virgin by her husband (I guess he feels justified in inspecting her vagina for hymn - which is disgusting!) shes stoned to DEATH! I am SO GLAD TO BE FREE from that mind control belief system of lies & threats of burning. I hope you find your way out too. SEARCH!
MolecularMoonlight 8 months ago
I'm sick and tired of Christians and their bullshit...
roniolin 8 months ago
You are obviously a Christian who is clinging on to falsities, do you also believe in jack and the bean stock? And pinocchio? These fairy tales are just as believable as Christianity. Talking snakes, people living inside of fish, magic fruit, walking on water. Your stupid
WELLS801 8 months ago
the gods of norse mythology thru the poetic edda, has never change. miss-interpitations of the translations shouldnt be considered a change, for if you do, then i will have to ask you to feel that the new king james version of the bible, and the countless others re-wrote to aim at specific group, aka children's bible, bible for the self help, teen bibles, study bible that change words to near simular meanings but still is a re-do if going by the guidelines of change elsewhere, we are all human
cobhcmofo313 8 months ago
haha rating has been disabled!! that should tell you how sure, the person who posted this, is about the message of this video ;)
monkeymethods 8 months ago
His voice is so boring.
unegrandetaylorrouge 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
this video is a bunch of conjecture and lies... Horus wasn't depicted before Jesus? i don't like when people lie...if you want me to believe you..stop lying to me
tyronewatson 9 months ago
this video is a bunch of conjecture and lies... Horus wasn't depicted before Jesus? i don't like when people lie...if you want me to believe you..stop lying to me
tyronewatson 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"History is Our nightmare we must wake up from..."
PROOF...its not a Myth:
wwwf4wpeaceDOTde
F4 World Peace by Cultural-Change
and rocking The New Age Of aquarius 2012
Peace All
Inshallah
Aniti-Christa-Aisha-klein aka sun
f4wpeace 9 months ago
I, up until recently, have always bought my oranges from a certain shop.
But I've met another shop that has better oranges, better service, etc.
I'm keen to change shops.
But I'm worried about losing the value of my loyalty to my previous shop.
What should I do?
naganokumas 9 months ago
@naganokumas either you need to buy an amount from both, or understand that yes loss of loyalty is a hardship, but it is part of business and any burearcrat would understand. its your free will to chose what store you go to, so why would you allow others to make your decision for you??? either by saying go here, or a chemical compound secreated into your brain, bringing on the feeling of shame for leaving the first shop. all in all, eat bananas
cobhcmofo313 8 months ago
@cobhcmofo313 Well put.
I won't make others make decisions for me.
I'll follow your example.
You've spotted my sarcasm.
Bananas, mmm.
Forgive my compounding secretions.
naganokumas 8 months ago
Comment removed
naganokumas 9 months ago
Comment removed
naganokumas 9 months ago
I have noticed that the views are getting smaller and smaller. I can not agree with them more, this is shit!
Also, Read it right. It says all of those gods ( the sun god, krishna, and jesus were 'CLOSE' and ellaborate. Dumbass Narrator
collegestudentize 9 months ago
I have noticed that the views are getting smaller and smaller. I can not agree with them more, this is shit!
collegestudentize 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@collegestudentize "History is Our nightmare we must wake up from..."
PROOF...its not a Myth:
wwwf4wpeaceDOTde
F4 World Peace by Cultural-Change
and rocking The New Age Of aquarius 2012
Peace All
Inshallah
Aniti-Christa-Aisha-klein aka sun
f4wpeace 9 months ago
Don't you love how these guys simply forget about trying to refute everthyng else that zeitgeist tells, which is actually far more important than simply religion
XXCrazyGermanx 10 months ago
If you could prove Christianity scientifically and historically, it would be hard not to believe in it. There would be indefatigable truth to support the Gospels. But in that case, why would God give man the gift of choice if there was no reason to not believe? Doubt must exist; there must be reason to be skeptical in order to give man the choice to believe or not. I urge you to choose wisely. The correct choice is not always the obvious one. I choose faith in God over proof of lies. Wht abt u?
FreQ247365 10 months ago
@FreQ247365 So then, if proof of God's existence would conflict with our free will (ability to choose to worship) - why did one of Jesus' apostles get to touch the wounds of Jesus before he believed in the resurrection? Why was he given evidence confirming Jesus had risen from the dead; why was there no conflict with his free will? How could he ask Jesus to show him the wounds before he would believe, yet that wasn't testing 'Him'?
There was no doubt in his mind. Your argument fails.
57worldwide 3 months ago
@57worldwide you miss the point of my comment. My argument is about faith versus proof, not free will. your rebuttal is useless and not germane to the topic.
FreQ247365 3 months ago
@FreQ247365 Fail. 'Doubt must exist; there must be reason to be skeptical in order to give man the choice' - not about free will, you say?
Regardless, my example still stands, the apostle had no faith that Jesus had risen from the dead, and, according to the Bible itself, Jesus appeared to him and allowed the apostle to touch Jesus' wounds. He was given proof, because he had no faith. You know, the whole 'blessed are those who believe' nonsense?
I have no reason to believe, without evidence.
57worldwide 3 months ago
@57worldwide Yes, its about faith: "I choose faith in God over proof of lies." Apparently this is too difficult for you to comprehend. My argument does not fail simply because you spuriously invent a new one based on the original out of an inability to grasp its meaning. But to refute your nonsense, I will say that of course you have no reason to believe without evidence, unless you simply have faith.
FreQ247365 3 months ago
Respond to this video... Thomas was an Apostle, which is a messenger or ambassador peculiar to religion, which means to say that he was a messenger of the faith, not the evidence. It was thought that as the Son of God that Jesus was beyond death. Thomas believed this. However, upon the crucifixion of Jesus, Thomas began to doubt and lost his faith. Losing faith and never having it are not the same. To RE-affirm his faith he demanded to touch the wounds in order to prove Jesus' deification.
FreQ247365 3 months ago
@FreQ247365 So why did he need evidence in order to reaffirm his faith, and why, when someone else in modern times is doubting, does Jesus not appear to him? What were the alleged miracles - cleansing lepers, restoring sight, etc - if not proof? Raising other people from the dead?
Your argument is so simple, yet so flawed. The Bible is full of stories of Jesus proving his divinity, why did he stop?
You say you chose faith in God, but would you do so over proof of fact, and against logic?
57worldwide 3 months ago
@57worldwide Why'd he need evidence? Because he is human. According to the Gospel, Jesus will return. it is a huge event Christians have been waiting for since his ressurrection. It is called The Second Coming. Christ's miracles were not Pr stunts to prove anything. They were simply good works. Do you know nothing of the man? His works are hardly done considering the millions of lives mere faith in Him has restored, and He is not returning on siesta, heathen, He is returning to judge man.
FreQ247365 3 months ago
Respond to this video... The beauty of faith, heathen, is that it is beyond proof, fact, or logic. It is of the SUPERnatural, which by definition defies natural explanation. It makes the choice to choose to have faith that much more profound. I choose because I CAN choose, and in doing so fulfill God's intention.
FreQ247365 3 months ago
@FreQ247365 According to the Gospel, the second coming of Jesus is over a thousand years overdue. You seem to fail to realise Jesus is not the only person to have made a millenial prophesy.
His works are hardly done? You mean giving credit to someone who is not around is somehow evidence of them still working? Sorry, I don't buy that lie.
Faith is not beyond reason. Your faith is merely lacking reason. I assume you believe in these stories simply because they appeal to you.
57worldwide 3 months ago
@57worldwide Really?!?! A thousand years overdue? you really are a heathen aren't you? "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." Matthew 24:36 I am sure there have been a plethora of false-prophets claiming to know the moment of the Second Advent, from Joe Smith to Jerry Falwell and including you apparently, and you all have been as accurate. Those whose lives have been touched by Christ understand how He can work miracles.
FreQ247365 3 months ago
@FreQ247365 You don't quote the part where Jesus tells his followers that some of them will see the kingdom in their lifetime... And the part where he tells his audience that that generation won't pass away before he returns. Which means his return is literally thousands of years overdue.
You realise gnosticism was regarded as heresy, by what came to be the orthodox Church?
Like I said, giving credit to someone else when they are not around is not evidence of them still working.
57worldwide 3 months ago
@57worldwide “Some of you will not taste death until you see the kingdom of God come with power” (Mark 9:1) The ignorant in Christ read this through a satanic filter of worldly perspectives. you expect an earthly kingdom with Christ sitting on a literal throne in Jerusalem ruling over the world with a literal rod of iron, when He clearly says “My kingdom is not of this world..." (John 18:36)
FreQ247365 3 months ago
Respond to this video... you confuse "The coming of the Kingdom of God" Jesus promised that some of his followers would witness with His Second Coming. "And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:20-21
FreQ247365 3 months ago
Respond to this video... He obviously speaks of a spiritual kingdom, which was established with His Resurrection and subsequent Transfiguration, all of which some of his Disciples DID see. Hardly overdue, we have been living under the reign of Christ since he Resurrected and assumed the throne of his spiritual kingdom.
FreQ247365 3 months ago